9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 1085X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Regulations. The CoC and the Resolution Professional has categorically violated the timelines in the name of value maximization, thereby kept on extending the process beyond 330 days and CoC in its wisdom has stepped into the shoes of the Adjudicating Authority and extended the period without any rhyme or reason. The CoC has no business to extend RFRP beyond 330 days without the specific approval of the Adjudicating Authority - the Resolution Professional/CoC directed to consider the two plans received prior to last extension of RFRP timeline i.e. received before 330 days period to complete the CIRP. Application allowed. - IA No. 244 of 2021 in CP (IB) No. 184/HDB/7/2019 - - - Dated:- 24-6-2021 - M.B. Gosavi, Member (J) and Veera Brahma Rao Arekapudi, Member (T) For Appearing Parties: Joy Saha, Senior Advocate assisted by Rubina Khatoon, Ramji Srinivas and T.G. Rajesh Kumar, Advocates ORDER 1. This Application is filed under Section 60(5) of Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (herein after referred to as Code) by prospective Resolution Applicant seeking directions not to allow the Resolution Professional to accept any plan after the closure of due date of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egotiations with Resolution Applicants, there was no occasion for the Resolution Professional and the CoC to extend the same when both the resolution plans were received within the last date i.e. 08.03.2021. They claim that the CIRP was unilaterally extended by the CoC to allow the Vendanta Resolution Plan to come into fray in the name of maximization of value of the Corporate Debtor instead of making all endeavour to close the CIRP process by 08.03.2021. To support their contention, the Applicant relied on the order of Hon'ble NCLAT, Delhi in Pioneer Rubchem Pvt. Ltd. Appellant vs. Vivek Rajeha Resolution Professional, Trading Engineers (International) Limited and Anr., in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 706/2020 and the relevant para is reproduced below:- Section 12 of IBC, 2016 provides for a time line of 180 days for completion of CIRP and even if we consider extended period, it is another 90 days and hence within 270 days the CIRP should be completed. 4 Although it is directory that CIRP can be completed up to a period of 330 days or so which is largely to consider the time frame of judicial process. Hence, practically all attempt be made to complete the CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l conduct of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, which has been done in this case . 9. The Applicant further submits that 'speed' being the gist for the working of 'Bankruptcy Code' to achieve a time bound resolution, the decision of the Resolution Professional in accepting additional plan of Vedanta Limited and the CoC considering the same long after the completion of overall time limit of 330 days is illegal, mala fide and contrary to the Code and is liable to be set aside. 10. Per contra the Resolution Professional/Respondent herein contends that the CoC should be arrayed as proper and necessary party to this Application owing to the fact that the decision to allow the consideration of the Vedanta Resolution Plan was taken by the CoC. The Resolution Professional is duty bound under Section 25(2)(i) of the Code to place all resolution plans before the CoC after examining and confirming the resolution plans are compliant under Section 30(2) and 30(3) of the Code and it is for the CoC to either accept or reject the same. The decision to extend the timeline for submission of the resolution plan was not a unilateral decision by Resolution Professional but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... antage if the Vedanta Resolution Plan is considered. The Resolution Professional further submits that all resolution plans including that of the Applicant were discussed within the auspices of the CoC and the same were not disclosed to any other PRA. 15. In response to the Applicant's contentions that CIRP period of the Corporate Debtor came to an end on 08.03.2021 and that the Resolution Professional ought to have completed the same by the said date, the Resolution Professional to buttress his stand, has relied on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited vs. Satish Kumar Gupta Ors. (2020) 8 SCC 531, wherein it held that 330 day period prescribed under Section 12 of the Code is not mandatory and vests with the Applicant the right to seek further extension beyond 330 days in exceptional circumstances and submits that his application seeking extension beyond 330 days is in accordance with law and pending adjudication. 16. We heard the Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant, Senior Counsel appearing for the Resolution Professional and Senior Counsel appearing for Vedanta Limited. The issue b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s pending before the committee were deliberated at length and the contents known to all the CoC members. The CoC in its commercial wisdom has requested the Resolution Professional to extend the RFRP timelines beyond 330 days with a view to give an opportunity to Vedanta Limited to submit their Resolution Plan in the name of value maximization of Corporate Debtor, albeit opportunity was given to the other two resolution applicants to revise their proposal. As this being status, we are of the view that CoC and Resolution Professional have taken the process into their own hands even though they cannot extend timelines beyond 330 days unilaterally without the approval of the Adjudicating Authority. This action of Resolution Professional is contrary to the letter and spirit of the Code and its Regulations. 20. The moot point to be decided whether the CoC is correct in extending the RFRP timelines when two Resolution Plans are already before them for consideration and negotiation were held with these two resolution applicants, just to accommodate another Resolution Applicant who had qualified in the EoI. In our view, the CoC and the Resolution Professional has categorically violated t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
